|
|
|
|
|
|
by arkem
4891 days ago
|
|
|
This sounds like a run of the mill peering negotiation[1]. The unusual thing here is a company getting press coverage for it. I have no idea how Google's peering arrangements are set up but I doubt that this is the only transit arrangement Google has ever ended up in. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peering |
|
|
There is something nonsensical about this whole matter (as reported by the blogs) that triggers a flag for me.
More info -
(tl;dr; the peering traffic between Cogent and Orange are too imbalanced; Cogent handles Google's traffic)
In this case, the US telecommunications operator Cogent claimed, among other things, that France Télécom was compromising the peering system (enabling exchange of traffic flows between networks, free of charge) used by transit operators, by requesting payment for opening up additional technical capacity for access to Orange subscribers. Regarding this claim, the Autorité considered that in view of the highly asymmetric nature of the traffic exchanged between France Télécom and Cogent, such a payment request does not in itself constitute an anti-competitive practice inasmuch as this type of remuneration is not uncommon in the Internet industry in cases where a significant imbalance exists between the incoming and outgoing flows exchanged between two networks, and is consistent with the overall peering policy adopted by France Télécom, with which Cogent is familiar.
However, the Autorité also noted a certain lack of transparency in the relationship between the domestic network of France Télécom (Orange) and its transit operator business (Open Transit), creating a potential for margin squeezes. France Télécom agreed to make commitments to prevent such situations and enable appropriate monitoring.
http://fastnetnews.com/dslprime/42-d/4881-france-telecom-fre...